Expensive Gas And Crappy Cars

Open your wallets, the Dems are in charge:

Republicans offered an amendment to the cap and tax bill that would have suspended the expensive new plans should gas hit $5/gallon.

Democrats voted to shelve it. Plus other circuit-breaker type measures:

Democrats Vote for 15 Percent Unemployment. Democrats rejected a GOP amendment that made clear that if the U.S. unemployment rate should exceed 15 percent, then the national energy tax would cease to be effective.

Democrats Vote for Skyrocketing Electricity Costs. Democrats rejected a GOP amendment that would have protected residential customers from higher electric utility rates. The amendment would shelve the national energy tax if electricity rates increase by more than 10 percent over 2009 rates.

This is one issue on which Democrats through the years have been almost perfectly consistent.  The Democrat party has opposed essentially all -- and I'm only equivocating because I'm being generous...I can't find one instance to the contrary -- efforts to increase domestic energy production, whether oil, coal, natural gas, or nuclear, for decades!

Why?  Because cheap and plentiful energy means freedom for Americans, and that is the antithesis of what liberals stand for.

They know better than you.  They know where you should live, where you should go, and how you should get there.  They know what you should eat, what you should buy, and what you should think.  It's all about control, and they should hold that control over you.

This past year, we discovered that Americans change their driving habits when gas reaches $4/gallon.  Thus, the Democrats know exactly how high they need to drive the price of gas in order to exert that control over America at large.  You can bank on this: as long as Democrats remain in control of public policy, they will legislate everything in such a way as to drive up the price of energy -- especially gasoline -- until it peaks at over $4/gallon.  The votes reported above are proof enough of that, as if we needed any more proof.

And remember: Obama promised to bankrupt the entire coal industry, which provides 50% of all power across the nation!  He and the Democrats have already throttled oil and nuclear production, so if they get the trifecta, we'll see prices skyrocket, just as Obama promised.  How's that for saving American jobs and helping the American economy?

But back to the cars.  I know I've gone over some of this before, but it bears repeating.  These 'green' cars that Obama is going to force on us will be more expensive and less safe.  There is no debate about that, unless you're a Kool-Aid drinking eco-zealot.  For the rest of us who possess the ability to think intelligently for ourselves, let's take yet another look at some facts:

The Obama administration's plan to require new passenger vehicles sold in 2016 to get an average of 39 miles per gallon or better (30 mpg or more for SUVs, pickups and minivans) is likely to be all cost and no benefit.

If the proposed fuel efficiency standards were in place today, Edmunds.com reports that only two cars — the 2010 Toyota Prius (50 mpg) and the 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid (42 mpg) — would meet the standard. Angry environmentalists might thus find themselves key-scratching "gas guzzlers" such as the 2009 Honda Fit (31 mpg), the 2009 Mini Cooper (32 mpg) and the 2009 Smart ForTwo (36 mpg).

There is little dispute that, as a consequence, cars would become more expensive and industry profits more scarce. Even the Obama administration concedes that automotive costs would increase by $600 per car on average and that industry revenues would decline by $13 billion to $20 billion a year. Others offer larger figures, but it's difficult to peg costs with any certainty.

What do we gain by this? Very little.

We wouldn't reduce our reliance on foreign oil: If we reduced global demand for crude oil, the most expensive-to-produce oil would go away first, and that oil is not in the Middle East. It's in North America.

Consumers would not be better off: If gasoline prices remained in today's neighborhood (that is, near their historical average, adjusted for inflation), the fuel savings from these new hybrids would not offset the higher sticker prices.

Moreover, many consumers would be forced to buy cars they don't want.

Greenhouse gas emissions might not decline much, if at all. U.S. emissions would likely decline, but reduced U.S. demand for crude would mean reduced global crude prices, which in turn would increase demand for — and consumption of — oil outside the USA. Eventually, most if not all our reductions might be offset by increases elsewhere.

Finally, drivers and passengers would be less safe. Plenty of hard evidence suggests that smaller, lighter cars equal more highway injuries and fatalities.

Reduced fuel consumption is not an end unto itself. It is a means to an end. These means wouldn't achieve the advertised ends.

Here's a follow-up the above article:

Unfortunately, an editing snafu over at the newspaper inadvertently left out the fact that there are four models at present that meet the proposed new standard — the 2010 Honda Insight (41 mpg) and the 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid (39 mpg) were left off the list.

 

Space prohibited me from making an additional point. Even if there is no rebound effect, my colleague Pat Michaels finds that global temperatures will only be reduced by 0.005 degrees Celsius by 2050 and 0.0078 degrees Celsius by 2100 once you plug those emissions reductions into the computer models used by the IPCC. Of course, proponents contend that U.S. action on fuel efficiency will lead to like action abroad. Well, good luck with that. But even if all of the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol adopted Obama's proposed fuel-economy standards, global temperatures would be reduced by only 0.038 degrees Celsius by 2050 and 0.071 degrees Celsius by 2100. If you tried to monetarize those benefits, you would be hard pressed to come up with an defensible number of consequence.

 

So what should be done instead? Nothing. At the risk of sounding politically irrelevant, there is no good case for the government to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption via fuel economy standards or fuel taxes...

Coincidentally, here's a review of one of the models that does meet Obama's standards.  It begins like this:

It's terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy. It's the first car I've ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn't have to drive it any more.

A couple of my other favorite lines:

The biggest problem, and it's taken me a while to work this out, because all the other problems are so vast and so cancerous, is the gearbox.

And the sound is worse. The Honda's petrol engine ... makes a noise worse than someone else's crying baby on an airliner. It's worse than the sound of your parachute failing to open. Really, to get an idea of how awful it is, you'd have to sit a dog on a ham slicer.

But let me be clear that hybrid cars are designed solely to milk the guilt genes of the smug and the foolish.

Read the whole thing - it's good entertainment!

Here's the point: epically bad cars like the Insight are the only cars that we'll be able to buy when the new standards kick in!

This debate is ramping up in Congress now, so call your Senators and Rep and give them a piece of your mind.  Be polite, but be confident and firm.  Cite statistics.  Cite reputable national sources.  Tell them in no uncertain terms that to allow passage of Obama's cap-and-trade or other environmental legislation will be to condemn our children and grandchildren to hearing stories of the good ol' days when America was free and prosperous.  Tell them the last thing we need during a recession is higher energy prices and more lost jobs.  Tell them you will be watching their votes, that you will not vote for them if they support these damaging policies, and that you will tell everyone you know not to support them, as well.

It's the only chance we have...but if the outrage of the American people is palpable and sustained, it can work.  Do your part, and start now.  It's quite literally a key battle in the struggle over the future of America.

There's my two cents.